Chances are you came across this article looking for help editing a difficult topic in Wikipedia. Yes, despite having many universal guidelines for editing, some areas are just tougher than others.
Why? Two reasons.
The first is that these areas are often controversial. When this happens, you get so many different opinions about what content should/shouldn’t be added to an article that there is enough in-fighting to make you want to just give up.
The second comes down to Wikipedia’s mob mentality where certain editors feel they control the narrative of certain topics (I will cover some of these below). They make it difficult, but not impossible, to make edits to certain topics.
One of the many factors I consider when it comes to providing a project quote is the topic area in which my team will be editing.
The fact is some areas are just more difficult. It requires additional time and resources to get the job done correctly.
These areas require multiple experienced editors to weigh in and a precision strike with how (and when) the editing takes place. You also need to know the specific editors in each area so you can work around their editing style.
So, while not impossible, it does take more effort to edit in certain areas of Wikipedia. Without further ado, here are the areas that are the most difficult to edit.
- Medical Content
- Cryptocurrency
- Multi-Level Marketing
- Alternative Medicine and Pseudoscience
- Politics and Religion
Medical Content is Difficult to Edit
Medical content on Wikipedia receives quite a bit of scrutiny and rightfully so. You don’t want people using Wikipedia to self-diagnose or believe false information that should have never made it on the site in the first place.
Because of this, Wikipedia has made up very strict rules on medical content.
Over the years, the rules have gotten so strict that you almost need to be a doctor in order to understand what editing can be done.
An easy example is referencing and its application to medical topics.
Wikipedia requires reliable secondary sources to support content in an article. When it comes to medicine, it gets a little more in-depth.
Not only do you need a respectable source, but you also then need to determine if its opinion or scientific consensus. Then, you have to analyze the quality of the content. If you’re not a medical professional, how the hell can you do that?
“Wikipedia’s articles are not meant to provide medical advice. Nevertheless, they are widely used among those seeking health information. For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge.” – Wikipedia
The below chart comes directly from Wikipedia. It shows how to rank the level of evidence. Good luck trying to figure that one out.
Another issue when it comes to medical articles is mob mentality. Yes, the group of editors on Wikipedia who team up and control the narrative of different topics
This is also referred to as “ownership” by the Wikipedia community.
Medical content has a group of those editors. One in particular is James Heilman (aka Doc James).
While Doc James is actually someone to thank for the transformation of medical content in Wikipedia, he has also become a thorn for many who want to edit medical topics.
So yes, Doc. While you are considered a thorn, you have done great work so you have my respect for that.
It’s not that Doc James is a great writer or editor. In fact, his writing skills leave something to be desired. The issue is that he has become somewhat of an icon editor and is worshiped almost in the same way Jimbo Wales is.
Doc James is a former board member of the Wikimedia Foundation. He was elected by volunteer editors of Wikipedia and has been seen as their “representative” in some ways. The cult mentality of this causes many people not to question his editing at all.
So, if you run into Doc James, chances are you have already lost your battle before it has even begun. On a side note, we wouldn’t even bring up the name if we haven’t had success editing when he has thrown up roadblocks.
Another editor who I won’t spend much time with here is Jytdog. Since he is no longer a member of the Wikipedia community (at least under that name), there’s no sense to beat a dead horse.
I will say that Doc James is at least civil to deal with on Wikipedia. Difficult, but civil in the manner in which he discusses edits on the site.
Alternative medicine is also a difficult topic to edit on Wikipedia. Something I will cover a little bit later.
Cryptocurrency and Wikipedia
Cryptocurrency topics are one of the toughest to edit in Wikipedia. There are several reasons but the one that stands out the most is that it is a new(ish) topic.
With new topics (artificial intelligence is also one) there is always skepticism.
Many editors are skeptical of crypto and as such do not like to say anything positive about it. After all, they feel like they would be promoting something they are uncertain about. They lean towards keeping negative information and removing positive.
There are also scams and fraud involved with crypto. Editors treat it as a fringe topic at times because of this.
The scam issues is similar to multi-level marketing which I will get into in the next section.
Now, I will say that crypto does need critics. Every industry does. That is how things evolve. A Wikipedia editor who is one of crypto’s biggest critics discusses issues related to the industry in the following video.
Now, to be fair to editors, they do attempt to create a neutral balance within the topic. However, one of the issues comes down to reliable sources.
There is the mainstream media (Wall Street Journal, etc.) and then there are what can be referred to as “industry publications” or blogs. These blogs inherently promote crypto.
Think about it.
These blogs would not exist if crypto didn’t exist.
Wikipedia does not see these websites, blogs, or publications as reliable. They are more of industry-type publications and therefore rarely used to cite information in Wikipedia.
They do rely on the mainstream media, the majority of which are also skeptical of cryptocurrency. This is why you tend to see more negative information about crypto on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia even has an essay that describes the types of publications that can be used to show the notability of a cryptocurrency.
“These publications are overwhelmingly enthusiastic about cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology, and generally cover crypto-related projects in a positive light, without offering a neutral and independent assessment of their promises or objectives. As a result, crypto-centric publications are highly promotional and rarely offer coverage that is truly independent from their subject matter.” – Wikipedia essay about cryptocurrency publications
The final issues, as with medical topics, is “ownership.”
There are a few editors on Wikipedia who are not only skeptical of crypto but consider themselves “experts” in the topic. Two such editors have written books only covering the negative aspects of crypto.
These editors are respected and rarely questioned by the Wikipedia community so when they add something negative on the topic, it is rarely challenged.
Multi-Level Marketing Topics in Wikipedia
We all hate multi-level marketing. But, what exactly is considered multi-level marketing (“MLM”) on Wikipedia?
Well, MLM is pretty much summed up as any sales company where a Wikipedia editor or someone they know have lost money.
I know this isn’t the real definition, but that is how Wikipedia editors look at it. They attack any company they can tie to being MLM and attempt to discredit it as much as possible. May they feel they are protecting others or maybe they think they are extracting revenge. Whatever the reason may be, the topic are becomes very difficult to navigate.
The other reason the area is so hard to edit is because of promotion.
People within the industry, regardless if it is an official MLM or not, often make attempts to fluff up Wikipedia pages about the topic. Their heart is in the right place as they want to talk positive about something they are doing, but it is often overly promotional and their edits are reverted for good reason.
As with many of the topics covered herein, ownership is also an issue.
There are a few editors who have been bit hard by MLM and constantly patrol Wikipedia in attempt to keep out positive information and fill it up with as much negative as they possibly can.
I will not call them out here, but based on their edit history, there are at least two editors who signed up to edit Wikipedia strictly to discredit the industry.
If you are still curious about what Wikipedia considers MLM, they have a page with a list of all multi-level marketing companies as well as a category for the same.
Alternative Medicine and Pseudoscience
Alternative medicine gets a bad rap on Wikipedia. In fact, it is often considered pseudoscience and written off as deception and ineffective.
Now, keep in mind I’m not talking about snake oil. I think we can all agree that is pseudoscience.
Fields such as acupuncture is often categorized as pseudoscience on Wikipedia. Wait, acupuncture?? That’s right.
Wikipedia hates alternative medicine. Why?
Well, there has always been a feud between scientific and alternative medicine. Since Wikipedia is controlled by mob mentality and that “mob” is more in support of scientific principles, they use their power to discredit alternative medicine any way they can.
Don’t believe me? Look up any one of the topics Wikipedia considers pseudoscience. Now take a look at the long “controversy” sections editors like to include, despite there being a general rule NOT to include controversy sections in Wikipedia articles.
Alternative medicine also falls under the same referencing criteria as other medical topics.
While this sounds logical, it doesn’t really make sense. Alternative medicine doesn’t get the type of research or funding for such as scientific medicine. There are many reasons for such which I won’t discuss here, but it seems like an unfair fight if Wikipedia editors want to discredit the use of it.
I want to be clear that I am not supportive of alternative medicine as a treatment and I am thankful that there are Wikipedia safeguards to help separate fact from fiction. However, many people in the scientific community support the use of alternative medicine as a supportive or supplement treatment.
Unfortunately, Wikipedia editors haven’t yet caught up to that fact (or are ignoring it because of their disdain for it).
In addition, I believe Wikipedia needs to be written from a neutral point of view. I have consulted many people in the industry on how to get to a neutral point of view after they have had run-ins with difficult editors.
If only Wikipedia just stuck to the facts and didn’t try to create a narrative based on the biases of the mob.
Politics and Religion on Wikipedia
The Bible says to give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. The United States has a long-standing principle to not mix religion and politics. You would think with religion not wanting to mix with politics and politics not wanting to mix with religion that Wikipedia would want the same.
Well, not exactly so.
So, the two topics don’t exactly mix per se, but the people editing both topics are of the same background when it comes to fighting for their views.
- Those who are religious constantly fight with those who are not.
- Conservatives and Liberals constantly fight over the “soul” of the country.
- And, everyone uses Wikipedia to do it.
With that in mind, you need to know that editing either of these topics can be difficult. You must know the reference guidelines and don’t even try to interject your personal point of view. Most of these pages have what is referred to as “discretionary sanctions,” meaning that anyone trying to edit war can be immediately sanctions for it without any type of due process.
It is important to note that Wikipedia is Left-leaning and not necessarily the most religious. Most articles related to Democrats are more favorable than those related to Republicans. For instance, take a look at the article for Alan Grayson.
Despite having major news outlets like Politico covering a domestic assault allegation from his ex-wife, Wikipedia does not feel its notable enough to make part of the website. The main reason is that it is an allegation from a spousal partner being made a few weeks before an election.
Wikipedia also does not feel its notable enough that Grayson assaulted a reporter publicly when asked about the allegation.
Apparently, the same rules didn’t apply to Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The screenshot below of Kavanaugh’s Wikipedia page from May 2020 shows content related the sexual assault allegation made by Christine Blasey Ford. Note that this is one of only 10 paragraphs on the allegation on his PERSONAL page.
Some would argue (and I would agree), that it is part of his confirmation process and needs to be documented.
Well, it is.
There is an article dedicated solely to his nomination process. By the way, that page only has four paragraphs about the allegations from Ford. So, despite it being an allegation close to his nomination which is in the same realm as the allegations against Grayson, you see who gets a pass.
I could write for days on the topic and bore you about the religious aspect, but you get the point. Just keep in mind that when writing about religion, Wikipedia leans more to the skeptical side.
So, is it impossible to write about these topics?
No.
However, in order to be successful, it takes a lot more skill and knowledge of how Wikipedia sees your potential edits. It also helps to know the editing patterns of the editors involved in the topics or articles so that you know how and what to argue to help editors see your contention.
Final Thoughts
Wikipedia is difficult to edit, regardless of the topic. However, some are more difficult than others, including alternative medicine, multi-level marketing, and politics.
If you are having issues navigating any topic within Wikipedia, please reach out for assistance. We can help guide you through the process and tell you what to look for when attempting your edits. We can also do the work for you so you can focus on your business and not worry about editors with personal axes to grind against your industry.
